Compelling reasons

I really hate it when people say, "you should come to _____; it'll be fun!" It's problematic in a couple of ways: the assumption of the extrovert's value system; and that the phrase is really ubiquitous, like a set expression that must be, without exception, applied to any description of a social event.

Even the word fun is problematic -- I seem to hold no understanding of what it means to other people. It is very much an intuitive attribute. What is fun? Is it something that is enjoyable? What, then, is enjoyability? Or maybe it's what makes you cheerful and happy. Then what does happiness feel like? What is cheerfulness made of?

Fun is also a word that is thrown around to lighten the description of a bad experience. You could have had a horribly boring time somewhere, "but, yeah, it was fun." Or some challenge was really tough, "but it was fun." But let's assume that it's not just a turn of phrase. Then fun things don't necessarily have to be positive experiences, do they?

Brianna suggested that something is fun if, after you have done it, you would consider doing it again. I think that that works best, but it doesn't solve any problems with the common generalized usage of the word. But it also encompasses what could be considered a masochistic tendency -- for example, long long nights, which are no doubt difficult to get through and not at all enjoyable (even painful and agonizing), which I would gladly do again.

==

I cannot push aside the feeling of being subtly pushed around by the community. I can understand encouraging a sense of community, but the effort really has to be made out of free will. Oh, of course it is all voluntary, but you still have to make an effort to assert your free will and that you choose not to partake in whatever particular activity. The way that the event/activity is presented/promoted is such that your participation is assumed and therefore expected.

I think that it was more subtle last year, for example, with the "Assassins" game. There was a bit of "you should play; you can get to know a lot of your housemates" peer pressure, but if you wanted to play you had to sign up so the organizers could put together lists of the specific people you were supposed to try to tag¹.

This was replaced by the "animal" game this year, where we just woke up to find mysterious signs taped to everyone's doors. If you wanted to play or if you just wanted to find out WTF was going on, you had to go to a briefing. But if you didn't want to play, then you'd better take that sign off your door or people might be stalking you, waiting for an opportunity to tag you in a game you're not even playing.

Or the strange list of everybody's names in an elimination tournament tree (randomly seeded) by the front door. What the Hell is that and why is it there? I estimate that only about a quarter of the people here know what it is, because that quarter goes to hall council meetings. The Powers-That-Be decided that we're all going to play in a chess tournament², and if you don't want to be part of it, you must talk to your assigned opponent and concede your game. I understand that there's something about the champion competing against other house champions in other countries, but I don't quite accept how we're being compelled to participate (even having to make a concession is participation, is it not?).

Even hall council is one of those "you have to attend, or you will have no freaking clue what these random things we're pulling out on you are" functions (as illustrated by the chess tournament above). Peer pressure is one thing, but "you are a participant unless you choose not to be one" is another. I'm not sure that it's such a good trend.
__________
¹ And there was no lack of participants, either.
² Couldn't we play Carcassonne, instead?